6/30/2015

Ted Cruz has some unsolicited advice for the states not specifically named in last week’s Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage: Ignore it.

“Those who are not parties to the suit are not bound by it,” the Texas Republican told NPR News’ Steve Inskeep in an interview published on Monday. Since only suits against the states of Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky were specifically considered in the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which was handed down last Friday, Cruz — a former Supreme Court clerk — believes that other states with gay marriage bans need not comply, absent a judicial order.

“[O]n a great many issues, others have largely acquiesced, even if they were not parties to the case,” the 2016 presidential contender added, “but there’s no legal obligation to acquiesce to anything other than a court judgement.”

I have read the interview and Cruz’s remarks are not, in my view, being taken out of context.

I like Ted Cruz, I support Ted Cruz for president, and I have given Ted Cruz money. But I can’t agree with this, to the extent he is suggesting that it is considered legal to ignore Supreme Court decisions if no order has been issued to you directly.

The Supreme Court’s language was clear: “The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States.” It is true, as a technical matter, that a case or controversy binds only the parties before it. However, the rule announced in a case applies to all citizens — and public officials who ignore a rule such as this, clearly expressed, risk more than just a specific order from the Court directing them to comply. They risk being sued for a deprivation of clearly established rights.

The fact that the “clearly established rights” were made up, will not keep the courts from whacking those who fail to comply.

For example: if I tell detectives to go ahead and interrogate a suspect they have arrested without reading him his rights, it doesn’t matter that no court has specifically ordered me to do that. Nor does it matter whether I agree with the Miranda decision. We all still have to follow it, and I’ll get whacked by a court if I don’t.

Now, to the extent that Cruz is suggesting civil disobedience (and if you read the interview, I don’t think he was), that’s a different issue. One might well ask: since the ruling is lawless, should citizens consider civil disobedience?

My own opinion is: no, not at this point. But we may be headed that way.

Let’s put this in a little perspective. The decisions of the past week were horribly disappointing. But anyone who suggests that this state of affairs is new or unprecedented, needs to read some history. Many other decisions have been at least as unmoored from the text of a statute or of a Constitutional provision, many with far more dire results. Take Roe v. Wade, as one obvious example. Look at the Commerce Clause decisions of the 1930s, such as Wickard v. Filburn.

I would support all manner of reactions that the GOP will lack the guts to try — and that, if they did try, would cause them to get shellacked in the elections. For example, I would support impeachment of any and all of the Justices that voted in the majority of either King v. Burwell or Obergefell. That, in my view, is a proper constitutional reaction to lawless decisions (notwithstanding the disastrous precedent established by the Samuel Chase impeachment proceedings).

But look. We didn’t impeach the Justices who made up a right to abortion in Roe. What makes you think they would impeach anyone now?

However, should courts start to order religious officials to perform ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs, civil disobedience would certainly be in order. At a certain point, enough is enough. Were I a pastor with religious beliefs against gay marriage, I would dare the feds to send guys with guns to force me to perform acts that violate my deeply held beliefs.

Even now, there is also a discussion to be had about the extent to which citizens should engage in civil disobedience generally concerning the overreaching of the central government. I recommend Charles Murray’s recent book By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission. I hope to review that book (which I have read) in a future post and have a discussion about civil disobedience and when it is appropriate.

When a curmudgeon like Charles Murray is talking about openly defying the federal government — and he does advocate that — you know we have gotten to a pretty desperate place.

But speaking as someone who has faced retaliation for speaking his mind — and who has watched others similarly situated cave to bullies — I can tell you that it’s a lot easier to bluster on the Internet about how tough you would be, than it is to actually carry through with it.

So. If you are going to follow Ted Cruz’s advice to simply ignore the Supreme Court, you’d better recognize what you’re doing as civil disobedience — and be prepared to face the consequences.

P.S. If you’re one of those people who believes it’s time to violate the law, and anyone who suggests differently is a coward, tell us in comments! Start by giving us your full name, where you work and where you live, and specifically what you have already done to resist the central government in a way that subjects you to criminal penalties or fines.

Full Name: Hillary Rodham-Clinton
Employment: Bill And Hillary Clinton Foundation
Address: 15 Old House Ln, Chappaqua, NY, 10514
What I have done to resist the central government: I have engaged in countless acts of fraud, graft, perjury, tampering with evidence, obstructing justice, and conspiracy to commit same.

I agree with Patterico that this is ill-advised. Despite the Supreme Court and the rest of Washington, we are a nation of laws and of law-abiding people. Conservatives generally still are law-abiding, and this won’t appeal to them. I think it’s a result of frustration plus the reality that, unlike ObamaCare, Cruz is acknowledging that we can’t do anything about this transformational legal change.

In light of much of the left making a million excuses for radical Islamism, for bending over backwards to accommodate unfettered illegal immigration, for ramping up political correctness to the point that blatantly bad becomes okay, and truly good becomes declasse, I say that if the dynamics of 9-11 are being incubated all over again, and strikes the US somehow, someway, someday, and if some of the most idiotic Americans (ie, of the left) are a part of the collateral damage, is it okay if I don’t exactly shed too many tears? Or is that being too heartless?

The US has become one big banana republic, a Mexico North, an Argentina with Yankee stripes. In a banana republic, standards and rules are generally supposed to be flouted.

It will be “law” when the mandate issues. And even then States can suspend the issuance of marriage licenses until the legislatures have amended the state’s marriage law in compliance with the decision.

The key term here is not disobedience, but ultra vires. Can Patterico or one of our other lawyers explain when and how that dropped out of most people’s legal lexicon? (Or am I mistaken in assuming that it has dropped out, merely because I so rarely hear it used?)
What I think states need to do (and not just in this instance) is to declare, not defiance of the law, but that this decision is not law, because the justices exceeded their powers. Judges have no more power to turn a same-sex union into a marriage than they do to turn a dog’s tail into a leg, or to make the tide turn around.

Cruz is totally wrong but well-intentioned. A better course would be for Congress to reassert itself. Before entertaining impeachment there are numerous other tools at their disposal to push the court back to the rule of law. Even though the executive is unlikely to sign or agree to any new law or appropriations that push the court back to its constitutional role there is no way to reverse, stop or slow down this progressive push without congressional pushback. A new president and new justices changes the players but not the postmodern revolution against the rule of law.

As a *procedural* matter, I think those states with pending cases in appeals courts (or district courts) have a valid point that they aren’t bound until the courts rule in those cases. The rulings in those cases are a foregone conclusion so there’s no particular *benefit* to holding out – but I think they have a perfectly reasonable legal argument for doing so, if they choose.

I am a little surprised to see it Mr. Frey (knowing how vocal your support has been for Ted in the past) but am glad to read that you are so honestly and proactively taking issue here with Sen. Cruz’ statement. It’s easy to figure that he is feeling and tapping into the great and genuine frustration that many of Americans are feeling about our government in these times. But I am increasingly unsure what either his short term or his long term game plans are beyond raising money. There are some temperament and judgement concerns coming out through several recent dumb ill-considered statements he’s made and I had just really thought he was smarter than this. I am close to the point of believing he can not be considered a serious candidate for the presidency. He is carving out a much too narrow constituency for himself even among Republicans and Conservatives as DRJ suggested @4.

Civil disobedience is for when you ackowledge
that something is the law, but you
choose to disobey it. Thoreau had no doubt
that the Mexican War was constitutionally declared,
he just thought it was wrong. There was no doubt
that slavery was legal, but the underground railroad
operators defied it.

In this case, though, I feel much the opposite. I don’t object very strongly to the institution of same-sex marriage. I think it’s wrong, but not worth fighting. My state’s legislature has adopted it, and I place no priority on resisting it. If this decision were valid, I’d not advocate that states resist it. But I feel very strongly that this decision is legally invalid, that the justices do not have the power to make it, and thus that it isn’t the law and should be defied for that reason.

But I am increasingly unsure what either his short term or his long term game plans are beyond raising money.

What about his proposal that Supreme Court justices face retention votes after they’ve had several years to establish a record, with removal requiring both a majority of the total vote and a majority of the vote in a majority of the states?

It was a MUCH larger more in depth discussion than you would ever imagine from Politico’s or Hot Air’s treatment.

INSKEEP: Justice Scalia, who, as you, right — you worked with when you were a Supreme Court clerk and who you clearly greatly respect, ended his dissent on same-sex marriage with a warning that the court depends on states and the executive branch, the president, to follow its rulings, to respect them, and he warned that the court was moving closer to proving its impotence.

As you know, there are some Republicans who have been talking in general terms of somehow defying the court’s ruling.

Would you encourage state or federal officials who disagree with that ruling to ignore it or defy it in any way?

CRUZ: You know, you’re right, that the final paragraph of Justice Scalia’s dissent was an ominous paragraph. What Justice Scalia was saying was that these decisions are fundamentally illegitimate, that his colleagues on the court are not following their oaths.

Now, the way our constitutional system works, the courts that have the authority to decide cases and controversies between particular individuals. But there is no obligation on others in government to accept the court as the final arbiter of every constitutional question. Indeed, every officer takes an oath to uphold the Constitution.

And Steve, as you know, I — I don’t — I don’t say this lightly, and I don’t suggest judicial retention elections lightly. I began my career as a law clerk on the United States Supreme Court.
It continues:

INSKEEP: Which is a great story. But did I just understand you to suggest that state officials should feel no particular obligation to follow the court ruling if they feel it’s illegitimate?

CRUZ: They should feel no obligation to agree that the court ruling is right or is consistent with the Constitution.

This ruling…

INSKEEP: But does that mean they can ignore?

CRUZ: They cannot ignore a direct judicial order. The parties to a case cannot ignore a direct judicial order. But it does not mean that those who are not parties to case are bound by a judicial order.

And that’s what Justice Scalia was saying in his dissent, which is that the court depends upon the remainder of government trusting that it is faithfully applying the law and — and these judges and justices are disregarding their oaths.

This is — the entire premise of the decision on marriage was that in 1868, when the people of the United States ratified the 14th Amendment, that we were somehow silently and unawares striking down every marriage law across the country.

That’s a preposterous notion. That is not law. That is not even dressed up as law.

Now listen, reasonable minds can disagree as a policy matter. Should gay marriage be allowed. I suspect you and I would disagree on that policy matter.

Part of the genius of our framers is they set up a system to resolve the policy matters, and that system is we can engage in the democratic process, you can make arguments in support of whatever forms of marriage you embrace and others can make other arguments and our elected officials decide.

What this decision is, and both of these decisions are, are decisions from the Washington elites that they know better than the American people, that it doesn’t matter whether the American people agree with them or not, they’re going to force their radical views on them, and that’s — that’s really unfortunate.
And continues some more:

INSKEEP: I really want to get to other views in the — other issues in the book, but I feel it’s important to clarify this one thing.

Did I understand you to say just now that as you read the law, as you read our system, this decision is not binding on the entire country, only to the specific states that were named in the — in the suit.

CRUZ: Article III of the Constitution gives the court the authority to resolve cases and controversies. Those cases and controversies, when they’re resolved, when you’re facing a judicial order, the parties to that suit are bound it. Those who are not parties to the suit are not bound by it.

Now, in subsequent litigation, other courts will follow the precedence of the court, but a judicial order only binds those to whom it is directed, those who are parties to the suit. That’s the way our litigation system works.

Now, this is what Justice Scalia was talking about in his dissent, which is that it has been the case that on a great many issues, others have largely acquiesced, even if they were not parties to the case.

But there’s no legal obligation to acquiesce to anything other than a court judgment. And I would note that the next major battlefield that is going to occur following this marriage decision is religious liberty.

And there are a number of pastors who are publicly saying that if the courts attempt to order them to violate their faith, that they will defy the orders of the court and go to prison for it. That shows just how far we’ve gotten from the Bill of Rights and our Constitution.
And then goes into the religious liberty implications:

You know, I’ll give you an example, Steve. Two weeks ago, I was in Iowa, and — and I met with a couple there named Dick and Betty Odegaard (ph). It’s a delightful couple, an older couple, that a number of years back, they purchased an historic Lutheran church, and they began hosting weddings in the church.

And — and they started a small business that — that was their livelihood, where they would cater the weddings, and they set up a flower shop, and they would put on weddings. They did this for a number of years until two men came and wanted to have a gay wedding in their church.

Now, the Odegaards (ph) are devout Mennonites, and they explained to these two men that it was contrary to their faith. For them to host and celebrate a gay wedding would be contrary to their religious beliefs and faith.

The next day, they were sued. They were dragged out through prolonged litigation. They ended up paying $5,000 to settle the suit. And they also made a promise they would never again host another wedding.

When I met with the Odegaards (ph) two weeks ago, Dick and Betty were in tears. They are shutting down their business.

Now, one of the consequences of this, they have several employees, several employees who work in the catering business, in — in the flower shop®MD+IN¯®MDNM¯, they’ve all lost their jobs. And that was for following their faith and religious liberty.

And there is an intolerance in the left that seeks to force people of faith to knuckle under and embrace, and that’s fundamentally wrong, Steve.

Society has no right to force a Jewish rabbi to perform a Christian wedding. Society has no right to force a Muslim imam to perform a Jewish wedding.

And under the Bill of Rights, under the First Amendment — we’re a nation that was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. And it is fundamentally wrong.

But the next battleground will be efforts, litigation efforts, to persecute those, whether they are Christians or Jews or Muslims or Mormons or people of faith, who believe in a biblical definition of marriage, the union of one man and one woman — the next battle will be the litigation battles to persecute them, to find them.
Is that what you got from the Politico hit piece? I would encourage readers at Hot Air to go to the original interviews of all Republican candidates. You can’t rely on Politico (or Hot Air summaries of Politico interviews) to get the real story.

Just so you all “Marshall made his decision, now let him enforce it” folks know: Supreme Court mandates are issued by the President. The Bush v. Gore mandate was signed by Clinton, and Gore presided over the Senate’s confirmation of the Electoral College votes.

Thanks, njrob. Cruz is 100% correct. It’s long-established in US law that each branch of the federal government is entitled to its own view of the constitution, and is not bound by the views of the other branches. Similarly each state is entitled to is own view. It may have to obey orders from a court, but it doesn’t have to agree with them, and adopt the court’s interpretation as its own policy. When it does obey a court order it can make it clear that it is doing so under duress, not because it accepts the court’s view.

I think we are more at a point that we are not a nation of laws, but a nation where the political class gets away with what they can, and “what they can” depends upon the whims of popularity.
Wisdom and self-restraint are rarely what is popular.

The details of what to do I am at a loss to suggest,
but I do know this,
the campaign is full out underway to marginalize and demonize anybody with a vestige of “traditional” Judeo-Christian morality about them.

And since many want to wait until it affects what happens in the sanctuary, it will get there real quick.
I don’t know which gets a person written-off as a crank first, going Godwin or going apocalyptic,
but Scripture talks about the time when people will not be allowed to buy or sell, i.e., do business dealings, unless one has “the mark of the beast”.
In many states at this moment, if not soon all of the US, one apparently has no right to enter the public business market unless one ascribes to the current popular definition of politically correct personal morality.
That should be frightening to all fair-minded people.
But even if there are people who would be if they know it, they don’t know,
and most if told, find it too hard to believe.
I know too many people still happy to be a “citizen of the world” with Obama while also attempting to live a Christian life.

This ruling will be used to determine the outcome of other cases. Even though the kings in black robes said “all” Ted Cruz is right. The ruling only applies to those who are parties to the suit. Even though it is unlikely states opposing this ruling will most likely lose, I think the states should use the instrument of the left, lawfare. Mark Steyn says the process is the punishment and I believe the states should punish those who want this unconstitutional decision.

EPWJ – the amendment-to-define-marriage ship has sailed. It will not be approved by the sufficient number of states even if it’s sent to them by Congress – at a minimum, it would fail in WA, OR, CA, HI, ME, VT, NH, MA, CT, NY, NJ, MD, and MN. There are other states where it *might* fail. Getting 37 states to approve it might have been possible in 2005; it’s impossible today.

I can tell you there is one thing I most definitely do not want to do and that is to do nothing. Let’s not make the best the enemy of the good (or even the not so good). Pat, if that’s not the strategy, what is?

By the way, I’ve gotten to the point where I don’t trust Hot Air on this, or just about anything else.

he amendment-to-define-marriage ship has sailed. It will not be approved by the sufficient number of states even if it’s sent to them by Congress – at a minimum, it would fail in WA, OR, CA, HI, ME, VT, NH, MA, CT, NY, NJ, MD, and MN.

Why do you think it would fail in those states? Why would those states object to the right of all states to define marriage as they see fit?

Milhouse – as a practical matter I cannot see both houses of the legislatures of those states approving a constitutional amendment which has the *net effect* of rolling back recognition of same sex marriage in parts of the country and/or ending federal recognition thereof.

I don’t think this is a particularly controversial analysis.

I think it’s *much more likely* to get support for an amendment which says that no church shall be required to, or denied government benefits (such as tax exempt status), for failure to perform or to recognize same sex marriages.

Such an amendment should not be necessary as (IMO) it’s contained within the establishment and free exercise clauses already, and yet (a) I think it could pass and (b) I’d support it and lobby my legislators (in NY) to do so.

At what point do we start disobeying unlawful orders? When we’re being loaded
into the railroad cars or at the campsite?

And to anyone who smirks at the thought that that could happen, they’re are
already planning the removal of churches property in the guise of tax fairness.

Which was pooh poohed when THAT thought was speculated on being the next step.

We’ve heard them state that those who believe what they say is heresy should
lose their lives and we’ve already seen that they’re willing to take people’s
jobs away from them. How far from that would removal to “Re-education Camps” be
for those who continue to refuse to bow to the new state sanctioned “Gods”?

And perhaps even they can see the problems with those images but all they have to
do is take away someone’s job or property and that pretty much is a death sentence.

That !!!!!! ship !!!!!! sailed back when the Dems said it wasn’t needed because DOMA.

It would have passed then,
may God have mercy on them all and grant them repentance and faith,

but their lies and deception are of the dam*able variety,
and this was just one of many.

Maybe some can’t vote for repubs because they think they like children to go hungry at night and destroy the earth, grandchildren be dam*ed
but I will not vote for Dems because I know they lie through their teeth to get what they want.

In the case of the Clintons and others of the left, they have been far too consistent at “getting it wrong”.
If it is their “honest” belief, it is only because they are so wicked at heart and blind to the truth in their minds that they have come to believe the lies they tell.
That’s entirely possible, but not by any means an excuse.

Re the denial of cert in Kobach (the proof-of-citizenship case), the 10th circuit decision rested, in part, on the fact that “the Executive Director’s decision discussed in significant detail no fewer than five alternatives to requiring documentary evidence of citizenship that states can use to ensure that noncitizens do not register using the Federal Form. Kobach and Bennett do not dispute that these means exist, and merely contend that they are overly onerous.” Does anyone know what these five alternatives were, and whether AZ and KS will try to adopt them?

Alternatively, just because AZ must “accept” and “use” the federal form that is missing important information, why does that mean they have to register the voters? Why can’t they “accept” them for what they show, and follow up by asking the voter for the information that they don’t show?

Or how about this: Is there any reason AZ can’t make it a requirement for voters to have been a citizen for at least 7 days (or 7 years, but for this purpose 7 days will do) before the date of registration? The federal form doesn’t have anything about that, so surely the USEAC would either have to alter the form, or the state could demand supplemental information.

Milhouse – as a practical matter I cannot see both houses of the legislatures of those states approving a constitutional amendment which has the *net effect* of rolling back recognition of same sex marriage in parts of the country and/or ending federal recognition thereof.

Just because those legislatures want same-sex marriage in their own states, how does it follow that they want to impose it on the whole country?

JD – the left of two decades ago I think would have. The left of today? I think many of the activists wouldn’t/won’t – because many of them are completely areligious so they aren’t really able to *empathize* with the importance of religion in people’s lives and that has caused them to undervalue the religious clauses of the first amendment.

I’ll argue with them when the opportunity arises, of course, because they’re wrong.

Milhouse – not to pile on, but I think the position you’re expressing in #40 is really only tenable if you’re not actually *listening* to what same sex marriage supporters are saying. They would view such an amendment as changing the constitution to allow states to choose to engage in invidious discrimination. I do not think it is possible to sell such an amendment, or to redefine it.

I also think that writ broad, there’s a serious debate between different groups – which doesn’t necessarily align with political party or with view on particular political issues, including gay marriage – about the role of religion in people’s lives and the respect and space that it should be accorded.

One would think that the first amendment had settled this debate, but apparently not.

Milhouse – not to pile on, but I think the position you’re expressing in #40 is really only tenable if you’re not actually *listening* to what same sex marriage supporters are saying.

But legislators are not generally same-sex marriage activists. If they’ve voted for same-sex marriage in their state because they think it right, or in return for support from activists, or in fear of retaliation from activists, or because their colleagues were voting that way, etc., it doesn’t follow that they’re full of the righteous spirit and would vote against allowing all states to decide these things for themselves.

> If they’ve voted for same-sex marriage in their state because they think it right, or in return for support from activists, or in fear of retaliation from activists, or because their colleagues were voting that way, etc., it doesn’t follow that they’re full of the righteous spirit and would vote against allowing all states to decide these things for themselves

I think Cruz is legally correct but that this is ill-advised because it will rub some conservatives the wrong way, especially Northeastern and West Coast urban Republicans. But urban elites are never going to vote for Cruz in the GOP primary. They vote for Mark Kirk, who has little interest in the Tea Party but prides himself on reaching out to Democrats.

So what if a couple of Texas lawyers disagree? What Cruz said isn’t wrong, he needs to appeal to his evangelical and Tea Party voters, and I think they will respond to this.

DRJ – I thought it was wrong when leftists were making grumbling noises about ignoring the Court, and I think it is wrong when Cruz suggests the same. But I am not really in either of the categories you described. 😉

== he needs to appeal to his evangelical and Tea Party voters, and I think they will respond to this.==

Yes. That’s apparent. But he’s already been elected Senator. Now he wants to be President of the United States. He’ll need to appeal to considerably more voter types than evangelical and Teas to do that.

DRJ–I would be happy if Mark Kirk decided not to run for re-election. I think it’s pretty obvious that his stroke has had some residual effects and there is absolutely no way he can campaign as vigorously now as he has in the past. However, unless something really unexpected happens I don’t envision that he’ll get much of a primary challenge. As many times as I’ve wanted him to vote differently on some key issues he’s still way better than the Dem he ran against last time– and clearly better and more competent than any of the announced Dems he’ll face next year.

Maybe in his home country of Kenya so can Obama. Nah, he ignors everything from the Constitution to court orders to now the Bible. The only things he adheres to are the Koran and Rules for Radicals so he’s okay.

==he needs to appeal to his evangelical and Tea Party voters, and I think they will respond to this.==

Yes. That’s apparent. But he’s already been elected Senator. Now he wants to be President of the United States. He’ll need to appeal to considerably more voter types than evangelical and Teas to do that.

Those are the voters that can win him the primary, and that is all that matters for now.

Do you think that’s the only kind of voters in Texas? Are we really that foreign to you that you think that’s who we all are?

Serious question: Would you have been offended by what Cruz if you didn’t read legal blogs? Maybe you’ve always known about nullification, rule of law, etc., but I didn’t until I went to law school and most of my non-lawyer friends don’t worry about those issues. They worry about sending a fighter to Washington who will stand up for what they believe. I think they know Cruz will do that and respond to that.

One would think that the first amendment had settled this debate, but apparently not.

Nothing is settled when it comes to balancing competing interests, and now SSM advocates have a “right” as opposed to a “goal.” They are going to advocate for their newly recognized SSM right to trump other rights, including religious rights, because they will say their right is evolving and thus needs special protection. We will see the SSM version of affirmative action for the next 25+ years.

To the extent that marriage is a fundamental right, though, it’s *never* been held that this entitles people to demand that a particular church marry them against the religious beliefs of that church. SSM should be no different.

==Are we really that foreign to you that you think that’s who we all are?

No DRJ–of course I don’t think that and I’m sorry and baffled you jumped to that conclusion. You said “he needs to appeal to his evangelical and Tea Party voters, and I think they will respond to this.” I agree. But I think he’ll need to attract more than Teas and evangelicals to win the national primaries for the presidency and that’s the office he says he’s running for now.

“To the extent that marriage is a fundamental right, though, it’s *never* been held that this entitles people to demand that a particular church marry them against the religious beliefs of that church. SSM should be no different.”

I am very, very, very confident that had anyone asked a ssm activist 10 yrs ago if a florist should be forced to provide service for a SSW or lose their business they would have said no way, yet it seems to be frequent enough, these days,
and more than that, I don’t see a big back-lash of other GLBT’s telling the suit-bringers to knock it off. maybe they are out there, like a few people with Eich
but I sure don’t see much of it.

However, should courts start to order religious officials to perform ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs, civil disobedience would certainly be in order. At a certain point, enough is enough. Were I a pastor with religious beliefs against gay marriage, I would dare the feds to send guys with guns to force me to perform acts that violate my deeply held beliefs.

Civil disobedience is also easier when the government is trying to force you to do something, rather than to prohibit you from doing something. The latter is easier to proscribe; you define the behaviour that you want to prohibit (“Setting fire to the dwelling-house of another…” or “Firing a pregnant woman”) and then let finders of fact determine if the proscribed behaviour occurred.

But forcing people to do something? You need them to agree to that. What of a Christian baker who bakes a cake for a same-sex wedding that happens to be a bit drier, the fondant a bit messier, and the cake less appealing than his normal fare? A pastor who performs a same-sex marriage in the wrong vestments and who vaguely imitates the priest in The Princess Bride? A florist who provides blooms a bit less wilted, a bit less full, than normal, in vases with an unfortunate tendency to tip over onto the wedding guests and douse them in water that doesn’t smell quite right? A DJ who turns up the music a bit too loud, plays songs that are just a bit off, and cracks jokes at the wrong time that all fall flat?

A trial would be hilarious.
“But he wasn’t supposed to say ‘Mawwaiage!'”
“The water smelled a bit off. Yes, it smelled like water, but it didn’t smell like water!”
“My fondant cracked! Stop laughing – I am litigating the Case of the Cracked Fondant against these bigots!”

The next step is to order the removal of all crosses and Stars of David on government owned military cemeteries including Arlington. ( I don’t think you’ll find many crescents but if you can I’m sure they’ll get a typical “exemption” from the leftists).

If I have been convicted of a crime and not already imprisoned, why should I necessarily go to prison immediately? Unless and until the judge specifically delineates time and place of sentence, I am, by law, free to go about my life. No police entity would have the right to detain/arrest me for failure to carry out a sentence not yet meted out.

Should I also pay a tax levied against me before it is due?

It may be silly for a given clerk to ignore this inevitable order not yet handed down, but I really like the “screw you” tone set by such an act.

aphrael (69b4f7) — 6/30/2015 @ 11:07 am
I am surprised at your question, aphreal. Any child who has been taught the difference between the truth and a lie can answer that. It hinges on the “tellers” knowledge: Maintaining something they know to be untrue, as something true, is a lie. That’s the difference.

Of course, the politicians know at some level whether they are telling the truth, even though many convince themselves it’s for a good reason or cause. But it’s still possible to tell in many cases. Juries decide it every day when they weigh the credibility of witnesses or when they decide to convict in cases that require proof of intent and the defendant denies the charges. Circumstantial evidence can be convincing in cases like that and in the political arena.

I think Christians are supposed to judge other people in our earthly lives. Otherwise, it would be wrong to refuse to let a pedophile babysit your child or to let a bank robber invest your pension funds. What we aren’t supposed to do is judge whether someone else is going to receive salvation. That’s God’s decision, and His alone.

Sorry but the heart doesn’t lie, the brain does. And all we need to know is if his brain has been known for lying previously then engage our own brain to figure if he is now. I have no proof Hillary! , Sharpton, Obama, or any of the usual liars lie. But I got this gut feeling……..

The Texas Tribune reports that six Texas county clerks are refusing to issue SSM licenses:

Several clerk’s offices — including those in Hill and Hood counties in North Central Texas, Bastrop and Burleson counties in Central Texas, Jackson County on the Gulf Coast and Odessa’s Ector County — said Monday they were awaiting forms or legal guidance or simply objected.

Four clerks’ offices — in Hill, Bastrop, Burleson, and Ector Counties — are awaiting revised forms but plan to issue licenses when they receive the forms. Two clerks object for religious reasons, but only the Hood County clerk does not plan to issue SSM licenses. The San Jacinto County clerk will let a deputy clerk who does not have a religious objection issue any license.

I’m not sure whether the Texas Tribune contacted all 254 Texas county clerks for this story, so it’s possible this is not a complete list.

Felipe – I’m responding to something which *appears* to be an assertion that someone was lying at point in time [x], based on the combination of a) the alleged liar being wrong at time [x] about what would happen at time [y], and b) the person making the allegation having been right at time [x] about what would have happened at time [y].

As someone who is very, very, very reluctant to accuse someone of lying, my natural reaction is to question this.

What is the *basis* for the assertion? How do you differentiate between “this person is honestly mistaken” and “this person is lying” if you don’t have knowledge of the person’s internal state? This is especially problematic if the person you think might be lying is someone you are primed to dislike.

To the extent that marriage is a fundamental right, though, it’s *never* been held that this entitles people to demand that a particular church marry them against the religious beliefs of that church.

It’s also never been held, until the current campaign, that a printer, a florist, a caterer, or a wedding hall must facilitate a wedding that’s against their religious beliefs, but now that line seems to be breached. Hobby Lobby was decided based on RFRA, not the first amednment; in states without a RFRA the decision would have gone the other way. And now RFRA itself is under attack, both at the state level (Indiana) and now at the federal level (the ACLU has just reversed itself).

aphrael, fine, let’s suppose that those who opposed an amendment 10 years ago because, they said, DOMA would suffice, were honestly mistaken. Then let them now correct their error by supporting the amendment they opposed then. Don’t they have a moral obligation to do that?

NK – what’s the *evidence* that Kennedy lied in _Lawrence_? I mean, I agree Obama lied on this subject in 2008, but that’s based on my knowledge that he was publically pro-SSM in the 1990s combined with an incredulity that someone would be pro, then anti, then pro again. I don’t have the evidence for Kennedy.

Milhouse – in 2004, they were arguing “we shouldn’t do [x] because it isn’t necessary for goal [y], which I believe is a good goal.”

If they’ve come in the intervening decade to no longer believe goal [y] is a good goal, that change of heart does not demonstrate that they were lying in 2004; and if they honestly no longer believe it is a good goal, I don’t think the moral obligation which you describe applies.

She’ll tell ’em what they want to hear, but it’s never the truth
She’ll say she wants someone to lead but it’ll never be you
They’ll never find another toad like Hill
They’ll never want another toad like Hill

As to the moral trustworthiness of the Clinton’s?
I never had sex with that woman!

Enough said. Any other person in the US would have not been given the chance to resign, they would have been fired.
Any other wife would have been after her husband, not after the women making noise.

Jesus was absolutely right about the sons of this world being more crafty than God’s children, but that does not mean we have to be fools forever.

Do you think Obama really had a change of thought since 2008? Do you really think Hillary thought marriage was meant between a man and a woman in 2000 or whenever and there really was no need for an amendment?

Even if all of those things are true, then perhaps they didn’t lie, but now have compromised their values for political expediency, or maybe they are now just deceived.

If one thinks SSM is a good idea, one can justify their behavior anyway one wants.
If one thinks SSM is a bad idea for any one of a number of reasons, no reasoning excuses their position.

Debating the moral integrity of the Clintons and Obama is a fool’s errand.
The only thing t be gained would be if enough people learned from the past to not repeat it, i.e., don’t believe what they say when they move their lips, whether they change their mind, get more info, or never meant what they said

it makes no difference.

I am still waiting for the listing of where the stimulus money went
can you explain that one away? Did Joe forget to do it and Obama didn’t want to embarrass him by reminding him??

there are the children of wrath, and the children of god, the latter seem more vocal, when they put Kevin Jennings as the safe school czar, we could see they were going with this,
we know from the European experiences, that believing Christians are censured, yet Salafis are given wide latitude, C

Milhouse – in 2004, they were arguing “we shouldn’t do [x] because it isn’t necessary for goal [y], which I believe is a good goal.”

If they’ve come in the intervening decade to no longer believe goal [y] is a good goal, that change of heart does not demonstrate that they were lying in 2004; and if they honestly no longer believe it is a good goal, I don’t think the moral obligation which you describe applies.

Without their opposition the amendment would have passed then. Therefore those who blocked it on falsegrounds should first fix what they broke; then they can change their minds.

It shouldn’t be necessary, or appropriate,
to raise as a campaign issue,
but not many people want their children forced to use the bathroom with people of the opposite physical gender.
Trust me on this, they don’t.
And the public, over 66%, would see this as a straightforward “are you nuts or what?” issue

If a candidate could voice a legitimate and sincere concern for the well-being of children with gender identity issues but just say that forcing the rest of a school to accommodate what may be a mental health issue is just not reasonable, and pointing out how frequent it is becoming la,
assuming the person is at least semi-reasonable on everything else,
they would win easily,
I am sure of it.

But he/she would need to first put up with the most vicious personal attacks ever uttered, and it would take a very unusual person and family to be willing to do it.

“Weaken the morale—then smash. While they’ve got their nerve there’s not a thing you can do; get their nerve—and not a thing can they do. And yet in both cases they’re the same men.” — Larry O’Keefe (you don’t know him)

And basically it’s all been psychological warfare. And the counter-attacks is a loud, strong “F*ck You!”.

I thought from day 1 that any talk of a “mere” law such as DOMA being the answer to the gay marriage discussion was nonsense, as in ridiculous, foolish, naive, and kind of stupid. It was as if people pretended there was no SCOTUS that could undo the will of the people in a flash. I always thought supporting DOMA over an amendment was a ruse.

I am not that brilliant, I don’t see how people involved did not know what I knew.

By the way, I’ve gotten to the point where I don’t trust Hot Air on this, or just about anything else

I believe one of that site’s main editors is supportive of SSM, perhaps on quasi-libertarian grounds, but I’m not sure. I recall shaking my head at his POV and wondering what influenced that opinion. Was it driven by purely ideological/philosophical factors or did that person have a family member or good friend who’s gay, or was it due to his own personal experiences?

Beyond that, I’ll mention again that the Supreme Court over 15 years ago barely allowed the Boy Scouts of America to continue to have a bylaw banning homosexuals as troop leaders. That to me was a far more open-and-shut case than anything pertaining to SSM, but leftist instincts make otherwise sane people totally irresponsible and foolish. Or actually deranged and quite ruthless—ie, not being protective of innocent youth and making them sacrificial lambs on the altar of feel-good political correctness.

As for the edict on SSM by the Supreme Court and how to treat it, such things truly deserve to trigger the phrase of “following the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law.”

The left in this nation has generally never been as patriotic or proud of their turf as a larger cross-section of the right has been. In 2015 those two sides deserve to merge, meaning that more Americans this July 4th, in particular, than in the past should become about as impassioned towards their country as people in broken-down Mexico or anomie-ridden France are impassioned towards their country. Meaning, and if they’re sane, not too much, or less than citizens of the US (other than Michelle Obama, etc) have understandably felt about their society in decades gone by.

And to anyone who smirks at the thought that that could happen, they’re are already planning the removal of churches property in the guise of tax fairness.

What on earth are you talking about?

Milhouse (a04cc3) — 6/30/2015 @ 11:43 am

Since SSM is now a right, if a church refuses to perform a SSM, they lose their tax except status. Then their property is taxed because they are no longer a tax exempt organization. They can’t afford to pay the property tax and lose the church to the people who collect property tax.

since the word State has come under new definitions recently I would reconsider your belief that All States means all 50 States … could just mean All States that are party to the case …

KaiserDerden (399734) — 6/30/2015 @ 9:32 pm

This sounds right to me. The lawmakers, uh Supreme Court Justices didn’t specify all states of the Union, only all states which must mean all states that are parties to the suit since there were four states. To suggest that all states means all 50 states in the United States would mean that you’re divining the “intent” of the justices. Technically, the judgement only applies to the parties of the suit, the four states, to suggest otherwise would be engaging in intentionalism.

Since the justices were not specific and “It is true, as a technical matter, that a case or controversy binds only the parties before it”, then all states must mean all states party to the suit.

However, the rule announced in a case applies to all citizens — and public officials who ignore a rule such as this, clearly expressed, risk more than just a specific order from the Court directing them to comply. They risk being sued for a deprivation of clearly established rights.

The states that define marriage as being between one biological man and one biological woman should let themselves be sued. If they lose, take a lesson from the left and change the suit. Drag it out in court for as long as possible until there is a Supreme Court that is willing to obey the constitution.

No matter your position on SSM, marriage is NOT delegated to the federal government by the constitution and is therefore the province of the states.

I find things like this a bit more disturbing than what Ted Cruz said recently. BTW, gay pride parades are notorious for being blatantly over-sexualized, as much as, or more than, being merely “gender-fluid.”

yahoo.com, June 30, 2015: There was plenty to marvel at during the New York City Pride March on Sunday, but one precocious 8-year-old boy stood out from the crowd: Desmond Napoles, of Brooklyn, who joyously strutted and vogued his way down Fifth Avenue in a rainbow tutu and gold sequined cap. And when critics reared their heads on social media Monday, suggesting his participation was inappropriate, mom Wendylou Napoles shut them down with grace and pride.

“If you are offended, don’t look,” Napoles wrote, in part, in a lengthy post on the Facebook page of LGBT website NewNowNext. That’s where a photo of Desmond (nicknamed “Desi”) has sparked nearly 5,000 likes and more than 200 comments, some of them attacking Napoles for allowing — even forcing — her son to be on such blatantly gender-fluid display.

“He is old enough and smart enough to know he would be marching in the Pride parade in front of thousands of people and did it willingly,” she wrote. “In fact, I thought he would stop after 10 blocks of walking, but he felt so good about being dressed up and being who he is that he vogued and danced the entire two miles. We collaborated on the outfit and this is how he wanted to look today. This was his Pride today. He felt it. He loved it. He was it. These children will be our future. Embrace who they are. All they are asking for is the same love, respect, and acceptance of themselves as any child would.”

Napoles tells Yahoo Parenting that she and her husband Andrew have been taking Desmond to watch the Pride March since he was 6 years old.

“He loved to see the drag queens and the colorful costumes,” she says, admitting that she did have initial moments of discomfort, but got over them quickly. “I believe my son will be better off and more successful in the long-term being exposed to all of the diversity at Pride. He needs to know that there is more to life than what he experiences at home, at school, and in our neighborhood.”

I thought from day 1 that any talk of a “mere” law such as DOMA being the answer to the gay marriage discussion was nonsense, as in ridiculous, foolish, naive, and kind of stupid. It was as if people pretended there was no SCOTUS that could undo the will of the people in a flash. I always thought supporting DOMA over an amendment was a ruse.

But who would have thought that SCOTUS would do that? DOMA seemed like a perfect solution. There’s nothing at all unconstitutional about it. And perhaps it would have survived had it not overreached by refusing federal recognition to marriages even if they were legal in the couple’s home state. That never made any sense, and shouldn’t have been in the law.

And to anyone who smirks at the thought that that could happen, they’re are already planning the removal of churches property in the guise of tax fairness.

What on earth are you talking about?

Milhouse (a04cc3) — 6/30/2015 @ 11:43 am

Since SSM is now a right, if a church refuses to perform a SSM, they lose their tax except status. Then their property is taxed because they are no longer a tax exempt organization. They can’t afford to pay the property tax and lose the church to the people who collect property tax.

At least that’s how it would work in California.

So let them pay the tax, like anyone else. How is a proposal to remove someone’s special privilege of tax exemption mean that the proposer is “already planning the removal of that person’s property”? If I propose that universities’ endowments no longer be exempt from tax, am I planning to confiscate the campus?! No, I’m proposing that they pay the tax and keep the property.

So let them pay the tax, like anyone else. How is a proposal to remove someone’s special privilege of tax exemption mean that the proposer is “already planning the removal of that person’s property”? If I propose that universities’ endowments no longer be exempt from tax, am I planning to confiscate the campus?! No, I’m proposing that they pay the tax and keep the property.

Milhouse (a04cc3) — 7/1/2015 @ 12:22 pm

Churches are non-profit organizations and non-profits doesn’t pay property tax. To make churches pay taxes would mean that they wouldn’t be “like anyone else”. Most churches have limited finances and would not be able to afford to pay property taxes. When you don’t pay property taxes they take your property. This is the reason California passed prop 13. People with limited budgets or fixed incomes were loosing their houses because counties kept raising property taxes. Prop 13 limited the initial property tax to 1.25% of the purchase value of the property and limited subsequent tax increases to 2% a year of the previous tax.

Milhouse-
It seems to me you are being very circumspect in your reasoning and ignoring implications, or “the writing on the wall” as Daniel would say.

Re DOMA, maybe I have a gift of prophecy without knowing it. It seemed obvious to me that was the direction the society was heading in.

As far as churches and taxes, I am sure the vast majority of churches in the city do not have funds to pay taxes, most barely have money to pay for upkeep, they would end up relinquishing the land/building, unless “Exemptions” were made by your local IRS official. Good luck with that.

That is not a law of nature; it’s a special privilege the government gives to non-profits, and which it can withdraw. Everyone else does have to pay, and every non-profit that doesn’t pay means more that everyone else has to pay.

Maybe the result of taxing nonprofits is that some would have to close or reduce their scope, but that is not the aim of those proposing to tax them. The aim is simply to stop giving them this special privilege, since they are acting contrary to public policy.

Since SSM is now a right, if a church refuses to perform a SSM, they lose their tax except status. Then their property is taxed because they are no longer a tax exempt organization. They can’t afford to pay the property tax and lose the church to the people who collect property tax.

At least that’s how it would work in California.

So why has not such a thing happened to a synagogue who refused to marry the “wrong” kind of Jews?

Yesterday, between Crossfit classes, weighed in @ 167 my Ironman tally. Prior to bunion surgery this AM, pulse scored a 45, but the primary says the change in shape over the milennium indicates an eventual need for a pacemaker.

P.S. If you’re one of those people who believes it’s time to violate the law, and anyone who suggests differently is a coward, tell us in comments! Start by giving us your full name, where you work and where you live, and specifically what you have already done to resist the central government in a way that subjects you to criminal penalties or fines.

Two words, dude, GET BENT.

I believe the law should be violated, and the people who created the law did so by violating the Constitution, which is why I believe in the right to violate it.

But if I AM going to violate it, I’m damned sure under no obligation to be ***THE*** Martyr for the cause.

Someone probably will be, but inviting the position is no one‘s personal obligation.

The God is sovereign in all things and uses Evil ends to His good purpose to the benefit of those who love Him.

Be His vessel and be a party to untrammeled Victory.

So the millions of children killed underneath age 5 over the last 5 years were killed for a reason? And for a “good purpose” to benefit followers. Please do explain. I for one would not want to benefit from the slaughter of millions of children no matter who thought it was a good idea. But hey, to each his own.

Since SSM is now a right, if a church refuses to perform a SSM, they lose their tax except status.

So why has not such a thing happened to a synagogue who refused to marry the “wrong” kind of Jews?

Because that is merely a proposal. It can’t happen under current law; some people are proposing that the law be changed so that it would happen. If it did, you can bet the same would happen to synagogues.

By the way, the Bob Jones decision explicitly distinguished universities from churches. Then again, what the Supreme Court giveth it can take away, so there’s no telling what it might say next year or five years from now.

Gil,
one day you will give an account for yourself,
and you will be condemned by your own standards
and you will have no excuse
unless you repent and believe.

Most of the millions killed under 5 were done so by people explicitly rejecting God’s truth and mercy,
and He promises that in His presence every tear shall be dried and there will be no more sorrow.
That’s a lot better than what you would promise, and even if you did, you can’t fulfill it.

And you don’t need it explained, because it is not that you don’t understand, it is because you reject.

128. Indeed, those enmeshed in the system will be the very last to admit it has become the enemy. My personal experience having been charged with a wholly fabricated complaint of Gross Misdemeanor Domestic Assault in which no protection was afforded the innocent, pursued at every turn as guilty, a case so convincing that the ladies I work with put up the money to bail my out, arranged for sitters and drove a half hour to await my discharge; a case marked by tacit collusion and misconduct by the Sheriff and County Attorney, egregious negligence by the Judge, Public Defender and Human Services, end at last after 10 months at a cost of tens of thousands, in a dismissed trial as unwinnable.

I will never vote for a former prosecuter again. They are invariaby co-opted by a system of check boxes and boilerplate regressing men, if any may be found, to the lowest common denominator.

Our betters are too good to do their job and the innocent merely collateral damage.

The saw goes “We get the government we deserve” but in truth due diligence, integrity and fealty to one’s obligation is never on offer.

The Fifth Circuit appeals and district court judges have entered orders that allow SSM within its jurisdiction as a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling. They are pro forma orders that were entered within days after the decision, but Cruz was right that the Supreme Court’s decision didn’t apply to other States until the appropriate courts entered the appropriate orders.

‘Society has no right to force a Jewish rabbi to perform a Christian wedding. Society has no right to force a Muslim imam to perform a Jewish wedding.’

Similarly, society has no right to force a white supremacist to prepare a cheeseburger for a black man. And the Obergefell ruling does not mandate that anybody of any class perform weddings they object to, any more than civil rights legislation forces bigots to make burgers for black folks.

First of all when it come to “forcing” party A to perform an act for party B, I’m against it. If party B’s feelings are hurt, he feels discriminated against or in any other way claims victim status tuff sh!t. Involuntary servitude, i.e. slavery trumps hurt feelings every time.

Similarly, society has no right to force a white supremacist to prepare a cheeseburger for a black man.

I agree that it doesn’t, but that’s not the same thing at all. To the best of my knowledge nobody has any moral objection to preparing food for a black man. Even the most extreme white supremacist, who thinks this is beneath his dignity, doesn’t believe that by doing so he is committing a crime against God or Nature or whatever moral standards he holds himself to. (There are, actually, people who do have a moral problem making a cheeseburger for a black man — or for anyone else. I’m one of those people. But that’s not relevant here.)

For an example of how civil rights legislation does force people to violate their consciences (and how RFRA ought to prevent that), to the best of my knowledge all the major religions in the USA teach that it is wrong to rent accommodations to a couple whom one believes to be living in sin. And yet federal law prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of marital status, and anyone letting an apartment or room is forced to become an accomplice in immoral cohabitation, if not in fornication or worse. I don’t see the difference between this and knowingly renting a getaway car to someone planning a bank robbery, which is a felony.

any more than civil rights legislation forces bigots to make burgers for black folks

Milhouse (a04cc3): “What about his proposal that Supreme Court justices face retention votes after they’ve had several years to establish a record, with removal requiring both a majority of the total vote and a majority of the vote in a majority of the states?”

In general, proposals which start ‘Amend the Constitution….’ are not likely to succeed.

Well, there’s no law in the United states that forbid citizens from hanging upside down from clouds by their toenails, either. If you run a hamburger joint, there’s laws that say you have to make burgers for anybody who can pay for them.

Right. And now there’s a law (via SCOTUS) ruling that says if you peddle marrying services, you have to sell them to anyone who wants to buy them and is legally allowed to do so. – Obergefell doesn’t actually say THAT, since it’s limited to state-issued marriage licenses, but the follow-on implications vis-a-vis discrimination rules are pretty clear.

What anti-discrimination rules? There is no federal law forbidding discrimination against gay people, let alone refusing to participate in gay weddings. Some states and cities have such laws, but those laws are exactly the same now as they were two weeks ago, and have exactly the same effect. Obergefell didn’t change anything about them.

Millhouse: “I agree that it doesn’t, but that’s not the same thing at all. To the best of my knowledge nobody has any moral objection to preparing food for a black man. Even the most extreme white supremacist, who thinks this is beneath his dignity, doesn’t believe that by doing so he is committing a crime against God or Nature or whatever moral standards he holds himself to. ”

“I would support all manner of reactions that the GOP will lack the guts to try — and that, if they did try, would cause them to get shellacked in the elections.”

Why would impeaching those SC justices that voted with the majority of either King or Obergefell–which is clearly the right and constitutional thing to do–cause Republicans to get shellacked in the elections?

Patterico on Thanks to Everyone Who Contributed for Leviticus's Baby Girl

narciso on Who Is Indicted Russian Oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, and What Are His Connections to Putin?

harkin on Who Is Indicted Russian Oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, and What Are His Connections to Putin?

narciso on Who Is Indicted Russian Oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, and What Are His Connections to Putin?

narciso on Who Is Indicted Russian Oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, and What Are His Connections to Putin?

narciso on Who Is Indicted Russian Oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, and What Are His Connections to Putin?

narciso on Who Is Indicted Russian Oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, and What Are His Connections to Putin?

urbanleftbehind on Who Is Indicted Russian Oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, and What Are His Connections to Putin?

narciso on Who Is Indicted Russian Oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, and What Are His Connections to Putin?

urbanleftbehind on Who Is Indicted Russian Oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, and What Are His Connections to Putin?

SEARCH AMAZON USING THIS SEARCH BOX:
Purchases made through this search function benefit this site, at no extra cost to you.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.